Wackojack

Great thanks paul

Request host for today Flycycle-Wackojack. Time reasonably flexible if convenient around the same time as Gnasher. 1400 EDT / 1100 PDT / 1900 UK / 2000 CEST Thanks

In Acol and by a long way. 1♥. Hmmm maybe by not such a long way as now there is an increasing tendency to open 1NT with a 12-14 major 5332. All systems combined Ben has the answer

What is partner most likely to have? 3 spades, 4 clubs or 5 diamonds? No brainer. If you double you have probably lost forever the chance of playing in a 5-3 spade fit. Always overcall 1S with that shape 11-17HCP and also 7-10 with about 6+ points in spades. If you are strong say 17HCP, you overcall 1S and then the bidding goes 1H-(1S)-2H-p; p-? now you can double for take out. Much better than 1H-(x)-2H-p; p-2S which suggests a powerful hand with just spades.

Tricky hand and our auction needs some explanation. We play very light opening 1M bids where with 6 spades the range is 9-15. (This is my partner's system and I just play it) 2/1 responses are corresondingly higher, so I judged this worth a rebid of 3♠ in spite of the ropey suit. 1♠ 2♣ 3♠ 4♦ 4♥ 5♣ Partner tanked before finally bidding 4♦ which I should take as a cue agreeing spades so I cued 4♥. Then came 5♣. partner's tank before bidding 4♦ was a little embarassing so I sent some messages to Hanoi: Before 4♦: ->hanoi5: this isnt system.. judgement bid coming up hanoi5: I bet After 5♣: ->hanoi5: ***** he hasnt got a 2 suiter? hanoi5: C'mon! I can't say anything at all. ->hanoi5: i know So next: 5♦ 6♦ pass. flycycle: result I think - very tricky hand wackojack: god that led me up the garden path flycycle: you took my 4D as cue at first, I reckoned flycycle: (reasonable) wackojack: the long pause was not an influence as 5!c was impossible cue hanoi5: when you bid 5!c, I guess wackojack: next

Bidding went: 1♦-x-3♦-x (responsive?) 4♦-p-4♠- p all pass I was critical of my partner's assumed responsive double but now I am not so sure.

1c (strong)-1d (0-7) 1s - 2c (nat) 3s - 4s p I was responder and when dummy was revealed I apologised for going 1 extra and gradually it sunk in that 4s was a good contract.

Partner opens 1♦ = 10-13 balanced. Partner has worked out relay sequences to determine the exact distribution (which oddly enough, I have learned) but not where the points are. So I jump to 5♣.

The system were playing after strong 1c-(1h) was bid 1s with 5HCP and 5s. Partner didnt seem to be able to add 3+1 +1. Devaluing my hand I left it there. Otherwise we might have got to a wrong sided 4s via Jacoby 2NT.

If you find the 2C and 2D opening bids unsatisfactory because of possible 4 card majors in it, then have you thought of opening 2H and 2S with 4M and 5 or 6 in a minor? Then you can use a multi 2D to cater for weak majors (and some other strong hands) and open 1D for the diamond hands thus taking the 11-15 with clubs out of the 1 club openings. That is if the multi is legal in your part of the world.

Any host available as from now 19:30 British Summer Time up to about midnight? Thanks in advance. Wackojack-Flycycle

Memory impaired strong club system devised by partner (Flycycle) and (so it seems) still under construction.

My friend Flycycle has a strong club system under construction, and just about complete, not too dis similar to precision. We would like to participate in the competition but I probably would not be able to get by without checking the system notes. Subject to this being OK please enter us (Flycycle - Wackojack) If not, no worries.

I saw 1S-(2NT)-p-(3H) p -(4C)-x-(4H) x-p-p-p and the commentators were highly critical, particularly one compatriate of the 4H bid. Defence didnt believe declarer could have only 6 hearts so missed a spade ruff and thereafter declarer could have got off for 3 light. Nevertheless claimed for 5 light to avoid prolonged agony. LOL

I started a discussion on this some time ago calling Texas Transfers useless. I did this partly to provoke and now I have mellowed somewhat and do use this convention with a couple of partners. http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?sho...4&hl=Texas&st=0

As evidence, this is my experience with MP robot tourneys where you play 8 boards for 25 cents and your results are matchpointed against other humans partnering robots playing the same boards. Started about 2 years ago and now played 1080 hands. My playing in these tourney's now has tailed off to about one 8 board tourney a week. Over the last 500 hands played, the 128 hand moving average and the overall average from the start has stabilised to within a 0.2% band on a % MP scale and at the present time they are exactly equal. What I think this tells me is that my % record accurately reflects my playing ability at MP relative to the rest of the field that plays in these tourneys. What of course it does not tell me is how good the field is relative to the average BBOers or good tournament players.

This seems nonsensical 1. You don't base a rating system off of a single tournament. You need a large corpus of hands. Its impractical to have players complete a meaningful hand sample in the single event. Equally important, you really don't want to be using the same hands for multiple events stretched across multiple days. 2. GIB uses an intrinsically stochastic process for decision making. Even if players use the exact same boards, there is no guarantee that they will face the same bidding / play decisions. When it comes to rating systems, duplication is both unnecessary and undesirable. 1. I was not suggesting a rating system off a single tournament. I was suggesting how in a single tournament, cheating might be avoided. 2. Thats why I was suggesting that the rating is based on comparison with humans and not with par. Comparing with par even when imped would need many times more hands to base a rating than comparison with humans or indeed with other GIBs.

Comparison against par is capricious. Is it really essential for boards not to be duplicated? Suppose over the tournament, duplicated boards were played in a random order for each player and had no number and had no player identification. Then the scope for cheating would be virtually zero. I believe the best assessment of ability is to compare with other players.

Helene's idea of using robots for rating looks attractive. Suggestion: 1. Use robot reward format with imp scoring and random hands (not best) 2. Free admission. 3. Participants names are hidden min number say 30. 4. To get onto the ladder play a certain number of tournaments such that the level of confidence is high. 200 hands say looks reasonable Mathmaticians to work this out. 5. No limit to number tourneys that can be played. 6. Rolling expiry of say 2 years. One problem that I can see is that GIB plays 2/1 exclusively, so those that don't play this will be disadvantaged and so will be discouraged from participating. Another is that the more you play with GIB the more you learn to adjust to its foibles. So no doubt the more you play in these tournies the better your rating will get.

Back to basics: Why does a reverse bid need to be strong? Answer, at least as far as I am concerned: Because opposite a 1 level minimum response and reverse, responder may have to give preference at the 3 level. This means that if the reverse is based on 5 clubs and 4 diamonds and not 3 card support for partners bid suit, then you need around 17HCP. The hand in question: ♠ x ♥ xx ♦ KQT4 ♣ AKQ852 has 14HCP but a compensating very good 6 card suit. If the bidding goes 1♣-1♠-2♦, what are the dangers if responder has a minimum 5HCP? I would suggest minimal and there are potential rewards when your 3♣ contract steals opponents possible 2 major contract. The down side of reversing here I believe is partner's expectations when she has a hand that expects to be in game opposite 17+HCP. Give partner ♠Axxxx, ♥Axx, ♦xxx, ♣xx, you are likely to find yourself in a bad 3NT, which a 2♣ rebid would save you from. OTOH give partner another club and one less diamond ♠Axxxx, ♥Axx, ♦xx, ♣xxx, and 5♣ is an excellent contract, likely to be missed if you rebid 2♣. So I think it is evenly balanced between the simple rebid and the reverse. Possibly the deciding factor is what you think your partner believes to be the requirements for a reverse. This could be different according to the system you play and which part of the world you live in.

I didn't really want to get into a discussion about the merits of my partner's rebid of 2clubs, but I suppose it does have some relevance in that those that would rebid 1NT with some 5422's will increase the frequency of a 1NT rebid thereby making the 1spade response a better bet that it otherwise would have been. Personally I think that the decision is close, but would not criticise the choice of a 2club rebid. Incidentally, had someone posted partner's hand in the Beginner/Intermediates, would you seriously tell them to respond 1NT?

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sj1083hadk108753c106]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv]My partner rebid 2♣, so I reluctantly gave pref with 2♥. Partner passed with KQ KJ1096 J6 QJ87 and managed to escape the kiss of death -200, due to a defensive slip and scored -100. Somewhat surprisingly 2NT= is the par contract Reflecting on the bidding during the play, I think Codo says it all: I would not dream of playing Bart and neither would any of my partners. I am quite enthusiatic about 2-way check back but only one f2f partner has been interested and my partner on the day was not. So I believe the odds favour 1NT as my response. It is ironic that had I been playing 2wnmf, then the odds would swing back to responding 1♠. At a f2f MP club tourney last night, I held: AQ42 6 K8752 652 Playing acol my partner opened 1♥. This time I think the odds overwhelmingly favour a response of 1♠, especially since 1♥ is opened with 44 in the majors 15-19HCP. Partner rebid 2♣ which I passed. Partner turned up with: J7 A10972 J3 AQ97 The opps cards were badly placed going 1 off for -100, scoring 21 out of 32.

[hv=d=n&v=b&s=sj1083hadk108753c106]133|100|Scoring: MP[/hv] Playing SA in a f2f MP tournament, partner opens 1♥. Do you respond 1♠ hoping to find a fit there? Or do you respond 1NT hoping your partner's 2nd suit is clubs and not spades, thus enabling you to get your diamonds mentioned? Is this an odds decision?

I agree with this although put a bit harshly. "One-eye" of course already knows this. Also wrt forcing bids Acol BBO ers will always jump when in doubt. So we get jump reverses just in case, and jump rebids on little more than min again just in case. Having said that Acol taught properly is a a decent system. I am sure whichever system "One-eye" decides on, he will teach it well.

Thanks for the replies. It is easy enough to construct hands consistent with the p-p-1C, where an overcall of 3NT is a make and 5D is not. I now think the odds of this being so, is low, and if this is correct, then my bid was foolish, particularly at red. However, readers may well have gathered that an opponent actally did leave the table after the hand was played out. The parting remark was "no poker lessons tonight, sorry p" Incidentally, the final contract was 5dx-1 (a common result) after LHO overcalled 4S then 2 passes to me and I went on to 5D (Possibly an even more foolish bid) LOL Apart from the walk out beef, (and getting pleasure from giving Justin a good laugh) I am interested in what the forum would overcall on my hand. Looking at the score sheet, the range of overcalls was 1D, 2D, 3D, 4D, 5D and double and my lone 3NT. Mostly the lower overcalls walked the dog to 5D anyway. I confess that now I am torn between overcalling 4D (and passing any further biddding) and overcalling 5D. (but then I have hindsight in knowing the actual hands)